US Congress: (Other) governments shouldn’t mess with the Internet

New bill would make it official US policy to promote a "global free Internet."

The US Congress has ground into a perpetual state of deadlock, producing a legislative branch that has been one of the most unproductive in history. But there are still a few things Congresspeople from both parties can agree on: the governments of the world really shouldn't be regulating the Internet.

That sentiment was expressed in a December resolution that called for a key UN body, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) to halt any move to assert authority over the Internet. And it was reinforced today, when Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) proposed legislation that would make it official US policy to promote "Internet freedom."

"The ITU now has unprecedented authority over the economics and content of key aspects of the Internet," said FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, who also spoke about the threat of the ITU at CES last month.

The text of the bill [PDF] states that it will be "the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet."

A few of the lawmakers quoted in The Hill's writeup of today's hearing seemed less passionate about Internet freedom during the SOPA debate. The bill's sponsor, Greg Walden, was one of the last Oregon lawmakers to come out against SOPA and PIPA. Similarly, Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), who was quoted by The Hill today promising that the struggle for Internet freedom "will be a permanent one," had a position on SOPA that was about as wishy-washy as they come.

It's difficult to resist being as cynical as usual about U.S. politics, but let's give praise where praise is due, yeh? Even if it's only talk, it's better than nothing. Government is best which governs least.

Even though the US can be complete d*cks when it comes to the internet (unlawful seizures etc) I shudder to think how it would be if China or Saudi Arabia had any real power or say over it...

And people familier with our work know that we are no fans nor shills of the US govt.

You say that like those governments don't ALREADY have huge amounts of control over the internet. The difference between them and the US is that they don't try to assert that control outside of their own national boundaries. Which is why the US has been worse than those repressive regimes.

There are some very good reasons to regulate the internet, like...say... child pornography. So there has to be some restrictions on internet use, and I think we can all agree on that. Anything it would be illegal to do in person should be illegal to do via the internet. And that's why ever nation needs to make its own laws about the internet. Yes, the Chinese government has different ideas about what should and shouldn't be allowable online. That's fine, that's their own business.

What isn't acceptable is any government trying to push those laws outside its national borders. And the US having discovered that it can't assert its own poorly defined laws past its own borders has decided to take the approach 'if we can't no-one can!' which is equally dumb as them trying to prosecute everyone in the world.

Of course there is a need for international laws and treaties for the internet. Not for file sharing, not for freedom of speech; but there does need to be laws to shut down child porn and money launderers and so forth. So for the US to petulantly turn around and say that no-one should regulate the internet (because if anyone should be able to its us and since we can't...) because in the end it causes more harm than good.

What they should be saying is 'We support freedom of expression online'. Regulation is a whole different topic.

The text of the bill states that it will be "the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet."

Well, hard to see that as anything other then a good thing. The bill linked is short, but at the same time looks entirely praiseworthy, and may even accomplish some good. I hope it passes.

One Sick Puppy wrote:

It's difficult to resist being as cynical as usual about U.S. politics, but let's give praise where praise is due, yeh? Even if it's only talk, it's better than nothing.

The thing is, sometimes mere talk, or actions that were taken without the intention that they'd amount to much, can become powerful precedent and symbols down the road. That's the reason the ITU stuff got fought so hard: it's not as if it, by itself, would have caused any seismic shift, but it would have created precedent and been a significant symbol That can work both ways though, not merely for ill but for good. There probably are some politicians tooting the "internet freedom" horn who aren't really that interested in it, but having made a public statement and vote it'll be harder to turn away from in the future, and simultaneously can be used as a lever in the greater public debate.

iandisme wrote:

MMMMmmmmm... delicious, delicious hypocrisy.

Maybe, maybe not, but it's irrelevant either way (which is another reason why "hypocrisy" is one of the most over and incorrectly used complaints on the Internet). When we have the ability to evaluate an action independently of the actors, then the heart and mind of said actors is of little to no importance.

Maybe we should start crowdfunding the politicians. Some sort of kickstarter where you can pitch in to buy a law or politician.

"the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet."

576 Backers 29.000 pledged of 50.000 goal30 days remaining

;-)

Rich people already do that a lot, it's mostly known under the term lobbyism. There's nobody stopping you from donating to politicians, though. It's been done before, I'm pretty sure you (U.S.)Americans regularly do the crowdfunding variation for elections.

The text of the bill [PDF] states that it will be "the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet."

they may not have intended to create such an effect, but it happened anyway, they don't seem to have any interest in fixing it, and and it's bad enough that a federal judge directly commented on it in a ruling on assassination-via-drone:

Quote:

The Obama administration acted lawfully in refusing to disclose information about its targeted killings of terrorism suspects, including the 2011 drone strikes that killed three U.S. citizens in Yemen, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

But the judge also described a “veritable Catch-22” of security rules that allow the executive branch to declare legal “actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.”

“The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me,” Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York wrote in her ruling.

Oh, right, the US writing policy for the rest of the world. Much like US judges who think they can overrule EU courts (as far as punishing the US arm of a business for the EU arm winning a court battle that conflicts with his decision), or the law enforcement offices that think they're there to enforce RIAA/MPAA agenda on foreign soil...

While I can respect and even applaud the search for more internet freedom and for the protection of a « Free Internet » all these declarations smack not only of hypocrisy but also of a very strong, yet hidden, imperialist streak (aka. We know better what is good for you).

Are they talking about freedom of speech, or freedom from defamation? Are users to be free from horrendous invasions of privacy? How about the freedom to share links to files?

Can I have the freedom to sell anyone generic versions of any drug I can manufacture?

Indeed, can populations of democracies determine their own IP laws, which best serve said population?

Are governments to be free to block hate speech? How about bomb making instructions?

This isn't hypocrisy, it's code: 'freedom' in this sort of rhetoric is code for the values of the speaker, and in the context of American politics it's code for the interests of the American political class and their sponsors.

This is not a uniquely American phenomenon. I'm sure you can find the same sort of rhetoric coming from most political classes, including Iran, North Korea, USSR, The British Empire, Rome, Athens, and back again to the Persian Empire.

Are they talking about freedom of speech, or freedom from defamation? Are users to be free from horrendous invasions of privacy? How about the freedom to share links to files?

Can I have the freedom to sell anyone generic versions of any drug I can manufacture?

Indeed, can populations of democracies determine their own IP laws, which best serve said population?

Are governments to be free to block hate speech? How about bomb making instructions?

This isn't hypocrisy, it's code: 'freedom' in this sort of rhetoric is code for the values of the speaker, and in the context of American politics it's code for the interests of the American political class and their sponsors.

This is not a uniquely American phenomenon. I'm sure you can find the same sort of rhetoric coming from most political classes, including Iran, North Korea, USSR, The British Empire, Rome, Athens, and back again to the Persian Empire.

It's difficult to resist being as cynical as usual about U.S. politics, but let's give praise where praise is due, yeh? Even if it's only talk, it's better than nothing. Government is best which governs least.

Yeah, you have fun with that delusion while your ISP (Time Warner, Comcast, whomever) is throttling your internet when accessing websites that compete with their corporate owned content production networks.

what a shame the US government didn't think like this when trying to get SOPA/PIPA, ACTA brought into law, and the current 'enforced treaties' they are trying to bring in even now with TPP and CETA etc, all be it on behalf of friends in the entertainment industries. the reason the internet is in such a friggin' mess is because the USA wont leave it alone, trying to be the one Nation that controls it!

"The text of the bill [PDF] states that it will be "the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet."

I have a little concern with two things in that language.

The first concern lies with "multi-stakeholder model". The government has already shown their reliance upon only "multi-stakeholder" big content and large corporations, so in that context this essentially is saying:

"the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to preserve and advance the big content and large corporations model that governs the Internet."

The second concern is with "that governs the Internet.". The goverment has given de facto authority to big content and large corporations to decide what, when, where, and how by their tailoring agencies and funding to serve the interest of those groups without regard for interaction or consideration of other smaller stake holders.

Putting both of these concerns together, in that context this essentially is saying:

"the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to preserve and advance the big content and large corporations agenda."

Or to put it another way which is reality based upon the government tailoring agencies and funding to serve the interest of those groups without regard for interaction or consideration of other smaller stake holders:

"the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government intervention in the big content and large corporations agenda."

Basically, this bill proposes a complete surrender of the government in the matter in favor of letting big content and large corporations agenda control the internet. Along with that surrender goes the American people's represenation in the matter.

Oh, by the way, the article is slightly incorrect. The PDF linked to says this (SEC. 2. POLICY REGARDING INTERNET GOVERNANCE.):

"It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to serve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet." ... and does not say that "it will be the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control and to preserve and advance the successful multi-stakeholder model that governs the Internet." < it says it is and not it will be.

It's difficult to resist being as cynical as usual about U.S. politics, but let's give praise where praise is due, yeh? Even if it's only talk, it's better than nothing. Government is best which governs least.

Sorry, but praise is certainly NOT due here. The US congress is concerning itself with "freeing" the Internet from international regulation because it wants unilateral control over said regulation, and doesn't want to be bound by playing by international rules that could compromise some of the more dubious activities the US is involved with on our global computer network.

Only a government would make a bill to say "we're not going to mess with your freedom on this one." Really? Why not just ... you know, not mess with it in the first place? Do you really have to sign a document and slap yourselves on teh back like you're doing us all a favor by NOT doing something?

They are all for a 'free' and 'open' Internet until the MPAA and RIAA lobbyists get at them again and threaten to pull their campaign contributions.

I think that's where I find this hypocritical. Gov't says "we dont' want to regulate the internet", but there's enough business law in place where large companies end up regulating it anyways. ISP's wouldn'y be sniffing your traffic for illegal activity if it wasn't the case. They're basically just signing a document to pass the buck/blame onto companies instead of themselves.

Even though the US can be complete d*cks when it comes to the internet (unlawful seizures etc) I shudder to think how it would be if China or Saudi Arabia had any real power or say over it...

And people familier with our work know that we are no fans nor shills of the US govt.

You say that like those governments don't ALREADY have huge amounts of control over the internet. The difference between them and the US is that they don't try to assert that control outside of their own national boundaries. Which is why the US has been worse than those repressive regimes.

There are some very good reasons to regulate the internet, like...say... child pornography. So there has to be some restrictions on internet use, and I think we can all agree on that. Anything it would be illegal to do in person should be illegal to do via the internet. And that's why ever nation needs to make its own laws about the internet. Yes, the Chinese government has different ideas about what should and shouldn't be allowable online. That's fine, that's their own business.

What isn't acceptable is any government trying to push those laws outside its national borders. And the US having discovered that it can't assert its own poorly defined laws past its own borders has decided to take the approach 'if we can't no-one can!' which is equally dumb as them trying to prosecute everyone in the world.

Of course there is a need for international laws and treaties for the internet. Not for file sharing, not for freedom of speech; but there does need to be laws to shut down child porn and money launderers and so forth. So for the US to petulantly turn around and say that no-one should regulate the internet (because if anyone should be able to its us and since we can't...) because in the end it causes more harm than good.

What they should be saying is 'We support freedom of expression online'. Regulation is a whole different topic.

You don't have to regulate "the internet" to regulate child pornography. It's easy enough to simple outlaw having or distributing child pornography IN ANY WAY, and then if it's FOUND on the internet, locate them, and arrest the people behind it no matter what nation they're in. Specifically associating "the internet" with such international regulations is redundant. We do not require mandated, vague, easily abused, and inconsistent policy to regulate the medium itself when we can simply regulate the content in general. in most cases, such regulation would only be used to limit forms of speech itself.

I find it telling that when the U.S. government comes out with a statement like this, it is immediately met with large amounts of suspicion from its citizens. I do not think that's telling in that the citizens are paranoid or cynical, but it is telling that the government too often has offered up hidden agendas under guises such as these "freedoms" before. I do think that it was most likely accurate in that it is the government setting up the ability for the "multistake holders" to be the copyright holders and other specialized interest groups. Quite simply, if the government had any other intentions, then I don't think we would have the continuing debacle with Megaupload and the U.S. government pushing to extradite DotCom to our soil to stand trial.

It sure would be nice if we could have faith in our government again, but I just can't bring myself to exert that effort just to have it dashed yet again, as has happened so many untold times before.

I did not read all the way to the comments, but the ones I have read are misunderstanding why this declaration is being made. The issue is not about the ITU taking over regulating what is illegal on the internet; it’s about them taking over standards making bodies so that each nation gets one vote.

Right now standards for the internet are by open groups: anyone who wants to contribute gets a vote. So China as a nation can never enact a protocol change say to SSL/TLS that says each session symmetric key needs to be encrypted with China's public key as well so the peoples republican army can read all the traffic.

China has a law right now that master keys for any encryption system must be registered with the government. This is the reason one of my friends who moved to china had to quit her job. They would not register her VPN key with the Chinese government.

If the ITU takes over, they can say any new protocol for any application must be designed and voted on by interracial committee… Then oppressive regimes could effectively force compliance of this law on everyone. Imagine if they changed the VPN protocol that the symmetric keys had to be encoded with a government master key?

To inevitable results: Stifling of internet innovation and the end of protocols like tor. The simple use of “non-standard” systems would become forbidden in every nation.

The citizens of the world must have the inalienable right to demand an open Internet that allows for the exercise of free speech.

It shall be recognized that free speech is any speech in line with Americas self interest and foreign policy.

Given it would be an undue burden on the White House to formalize any policy in writing as to what constitutes an open Internet you will need to trust us that we will only utilize the Internet kill switch when it is in the best interest of everyone, everywhere that we do so.

Of course the NSA wants it as free as possible so they can access, archive and analyze as much information as possible. But shouldn't they include a clause to maintain dominance over issuing domain names as a safety measure to protect "freedom"?